But they do. That’s exactly what they do. They refer to this existence in the ontological sense not the sense of sense-sphare existence, form-sphere existence etc. And then you get “assuming” instead of clinging, grasping. And from this you are told the problem is the postmodernist process of assumption, and that things exist because they are assumed not because they really exist. Only perceptions exist not elements. The fact that elements exist is because of assuming them to be real, because of confusing perceptions for elements when there are no elements in reality. We get to radical solipsism and the idea that other beings are philosophical zombies.
This is what the existentialist interpretation is saying. It’s twisting both the clinging/grasping to mean “assuming” and then twisting sense-sphere existence, form sphere existence etc. to mean ontological existence.
And any pali scholar or course disagrees with such mistranslations and interpretations. And then the postmodernist go and claim that everybody else is an indoctrinated traditionalist, that they are misunderstood artist. That they are the ones who actually got it right and all others are simply too traditionalist to agree with their interpretation.
They claim every scholar or normal buddhist got things wrong before somebody came along and figured it out this should be combined with “the insight of western thinkers” such as Heidegger, Satre, etc. and that’s how the true meaning of Buddha teachings was re-discovered recently.
Postmodernism is known for having tried to use every field of objective science to confirm their postmodernist beliefs. They often spin discoveries in very diverse fields from quantum physics to music and try to show how these fields confirm their postmodernist beliefs. That is also what the Sokall affair was meant to satirize. So I am not surprised postmodernism has infiltrated buddhism too and is trying to make a case for Buddha teachings confirming postmodernism.
)
